Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

The "-ism's"

Vaarka
Posts: 7,613
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 4:17:58 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
So we've been talking about the "-ism's" in history (nationalism, socialism, liberalism, etc...).

Being me, I don't really understand how the -ism's work until someone's kind of explained it with some examples. So, of course, I don't really know what these "-ism's" are, and wouldn't mind if someone here (because I know some of you are famous for your strange knowledge on this subject) could explain how some of these work or what their "goal" or "concept" is.

Basically, ones like nationalism, socialism, conservatism, liberalism, capitalism, etc. Any others you may know that I didn't list that are major or important.
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 5:38:16 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/29/2016 4:17:58 PM, Vaarka wrote:
So we've been talking about the "-ism's" in history (nationalism, socialism, liberalism, etc...).

Being me, I don't really understand how the -ism's work until someone's kind of explained it with some examples. So, of course, I don't really know what these "-ism's" are, and wouldn't mind if someone here (because I know some of you are famous for your strange knowledge on this subject) could explain how some of these work or what their "goal" or "concept" is.

Basically, ones like nationalism, socialism, conservatism, liberalism, capitalism, etc. Any others you may know that I didn't list that are major or important.

They can be both personal belief systems about how to run one's life, and beliefs about how society ought to organize and manage itself. They also overlap a lot. Nationalism focuses on the well-being of the nation state as a whole, and bestows a certain value on it and all of its institutions. Globalism, on the other hand, holds that humanity as a whole ought to be our primary concern. Conservatism is, basically, a form of traditionalism (if anything is going to be changed, change it slowly or not at all). Liberalism doesn't even mean anything at this point. It's synonymous with both 'traditional' liberalism (freedom of expression and religion, democracy, the rule of law, etc.) and progressivism, which is also almost meaningless at this point (it originally meant the equal distribution of an influx of wealth which entered the West due to industrialization, but nowadays just serves as an antithesis to conservatism (more change, as fast as possible, the consequences be damned)). Socialism and capitalism are in conflict about who controls the means of production (individuals or more democratized control), while communism is inherently antagonistic to the upper class (the end goal is to strip them of their control and render them obsolete).

At this point, there isn't any real significant fighting in America over socialism v. capitalism; we have a mixed system and it will probably going to stay that way no matter what happens. The main visible conflict is between conservatism and liberalism, and it's why our political system has basically been reduced to farce (with republicans moaning that the world will end anytime something changes, and the progressives so devoted to wanton, unwarranted change that they think 'because it's 2015' is a convincing argument. There's a huge, and very important, struggle between nationalists (the vast majority of Americans) and globalists (the elite ruling class) going on largely behind the scenes. Trump has been so successful, politically, because he is the only politician to vociferously attack the globalists and advocate for some degree of protectionism. Globalists are in reality the biggest threat to American interests, because the obscenely rich owners of multinational conglomerates have no loyalties to America's socioeconomic or geopolitical well-being. The media spin, of course, is anything but this, with a bipartisan media establishment demonizing the economic and social policies of the 'other' in order to prevent any real issues from coming to light while never changing the status quo. The last time this underlying conflict bubbled to the surface was when Nader ran on an anti-NAFTA platform, tapping into a similar vein that Trump is now exploiting with greater success than Nader ever did (mostly because Trump is a shameless populist and an adept manipulator, being a media man and negotiator himself.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 5:54:17 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/29/2016 5:38:16 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/29/2016 4:17:58 PM, Vaarka wrote:
So we've been talking about the "-ism's" in history (nationalism, socialism, liberalism, etc...).

Being me, I don't really understand how the -ism's work until someone's kind of explained it with some examples. So, of course, I don't really know what these "-ism's" are, and wouldn't mind if someone here (because I know some of you are famous for your strange knowledge on this subject) could explain how some of these work or what their "goal" or "concept" is.

Basically, ones like nationalism, socialism, conservatism, liberalism, capitalism, etc. Any others you may know that I didn't list that are major or important.

They can be both personal belief systems about how to run one's life, and beliefs about how society ought to organize and manage itself. They also overlap a lot. Nationalism focuses on the well-being of the nation state as a whole, and bestows a certain value on it and all of its institutions. Globalism, on the other hand, holds that humanity as a whole ought to be our primary concern. Conservatism is, basically, a form of traditionalism (if anything is going to be changed, change it slowly or not at all). Liberalism doesn't even mean anything at this point. It's synonymous with both 'traditional' liberalism (freedom of expression and religion, democracy, the rule of law, etc.) and progressivism, which is also almost meaningless at this point (it originally meant the equal distribution of an influx of wealth which entered the West due to industrialization, but nowadays just serves as an antithesis to conservatism (more change, as fast as possible, the consequences be damned)). Socialism and capitalism are in conflict about who controls the means of production (individuals or more democratized control), while communism is inherently antagonistic to the upper class (the end goal is to strip them of their control and render them obsolete).

At this point, there isn't any real significant fighting in America over socialism v. capitalism; we have a mixed system and it will probably going to stay that way no matter what happens. The main visible conflict is between conservatism and liberalism, and it's why our political system has basically been reduced to farce (with republicans moaning that the world will end anytime something changes, and the progressives so devoted to wanton, unwarranted change that they think 'because it's 2015' is a convincing argument. There's a huge, and very important, struggle between nationalists (the vast majority of Americans) and globalists (the elite ruling class) going on largely behind the scenes. Trump has been so successful, politically, because he is the only politician to vociferously attack the globalists and advocate for some degree of protectionism. Globalists are in reality the biggest threat to American interests, because the obscenely rich owners of multinational conglomerates have no loyalties to America's socioeconomic or geopolitical well-being. The media spin, of course, is anything but this, with a bipartisan media establishment demonizing the economic and social policies of the 'other' in order to prevent any real issues from coming to light while never changing the status quo. The last time this underlying conflict bubbled to the surface was when Nader ran on an anti-NAFTA platform, tapping into a similar vein that Trump is now exploiting with greater success than Nader ever did (mostly because Trump is a shameless populist and an adept manipulator, being a media man and negotiator himself.

Never thought you ever anti-globalization, Skep. Come on. It's the way of the future.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 6:15:17 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/29/2016 4:17:58 PM, Vaarka wrote:
So we've been talking about the "-ism's" in history (nationalism, socialism, liberalism, etc...).

Being me, I don't really understand how the -ism's work until someone's kind of explained it with some examples. So, of course, I don't really know what these "-ism's" are, and wouldn't mind if someone here (because I know some of you are famous for your strange knowledge on this subject) could explain how some of these work or what their "goal" or "concept" is.

Basically, ones like nationalism, socialism, conservatism, liberalism, capitalism, etc. Any others you may know that I didn't list that are major or important.

Feudalism: You're a tenant with 2 cows. The landlord takes some of the milk and all of the cream.

Pure socialism: You have 2 cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They give you as much milk as you need.

Socialism: You have 2 cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor, who has zero cows.

Fascism: You have 2 cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.

Pure communism: You have 2 cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them. You all share the milk.

Soviet communism: You have 2 cows. The government takes both and gives you milk. You wait so long to get the milk that it's curdled by the time it reaches you.

Totalitarianism: You have 2 cows. The government takes both and shoots you. They deny the cows' existence. Milk is banned.

Pure democracy: You have 2 cows. You and your neighbors all vote to decide who gets the milk.

Representative democracy: You have 2 cows. You and your neighbors elect someone to distribute the milk.

American-Democrat Democracy: You have 2 cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for your success. You vote for politicians who raise taxes on your cows, which forces you to sell one to pay it. The politicians use that tax money to buy your neighbor a cow.

American-Republican democracy: You have 2 cows. Your neighbor has none. You move to a better neighborhood.

Pure capitalism: You have 2 cows. You lay one off and force the other to do the work of 4 cows. You're surprised when it dies.

Capitalism: You have 2 cows. You sell one and buy a bull. You herd them and grow rich.

Anarchy: You have 2 cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors kill you and take the cows.

American Corporatism: You have two cows. You sell one to a subsidiary company and lease it back to yourself to claim a tax benefit. You drug the cows so they produce far more milk than normal. Your bosses give you a bonus. One of the cows dies from the drugs. You tell the press you downsized, thereby halving expenses. The company stock goes up. Your bosses give you a bonus. You outsource your farmhand labor to Mexico. You generously donate to the President's campaign. The President cuts corporate taxes.

Nationalism: You have 2 cows. They're American cows, so they're better than anyone else's cows.

Conservatism and liberalism don't really fit into the cow dynamic, unfortunately. But it was fun.
Vaarka
Posts: 7,613
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 6:17:46 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/29/2016 6:15:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/29/2016 4:17:58 PM, Vaarka wrote:
So we've been talking about the "-ism's" in history (nationalism, socialism, liberalism, etc...).

Being me, I don't really understand how the -ism's work until someone's kind of explained it with some examples. So, of course, I don't really know what these "-ism's" are, and wouldn't mind if someone here (because I know some of you are famous for your strange knowledge on this subject) could explain how some of these work or what their "goal" or "concept" is.

Basically, ones like nationalism, socialism, conservatism, liberalism, capitalism, etc. Any others you may know that I didn't list that are major or important.

Feudalism: You're a tenant with 2 cows. The landlord takes some of the milk and all of the cream.

Pure socialism: You have 2 cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They give you as much milk as you need.

Socialism: You have 2 cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor, who has zero cows.

Fascism: You have 2 cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.

Pure communism: You have 2 cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them. You all share the milk.

Soviet communism: You have 2 cows. The government takes both and gives you milk. You wait so long to get the milk that it's curdled by the time it reaches you.

Totalitarianism: You have 2 cows. The government takes both and shoots you. They deny the cows' existence. Milk is banned.

Pure democracy: You have 2 cows. You and your neighbors all vote to decide who gets the milk.

Representative democracy: You have 2 cows. You and your neighbors elect someone to distribute the milk.

American-Democrat Democracy: You have 2 cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for your success. You vote for politicians who raise taxes on your cows, which forces you to sell one to pay it. The politicians use that tax money to buy your neighbor a cow.

American-Republican democracy: You have 2 cows. Your neighbor has none. You move to a better neighborhood.

Pure capitalism: You have 2 cows. You lay one off and force the other to do the work of 4 cows. You're surprised when it dies.

Capitalism: You have 2 cows. You sell one and buy a bull. You herd them and grow rich.

Anarchy: You have 2 cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors kill you and take the cows.

American Corporatism: You have two cows. You sell one to a subsidiary company and lease it back to yourself to claim a tax benefit. You drug the cows so they produce far more milk than normal. Your bosses give you a bonus. One of the cows dies from the drugs. You tell the press you downsized, thereby halving expenses. The company stock goes up. Your bosses give you a bonus. You outsource your farmhand labor to Mexico. You generously donate to the President's campaign. The President cuts corporate taxes.

Nationalism: You have 2 cows. They're American cows, so they're better than anyone else's cows.

Conservatism and liberalism don't really fit into the cow dynamic, unfortunately. But it was fun.

Thanks for the basic explanation XD
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 6:20:35 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/29/2016 6:17:46 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 1/29/2016 6:15:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/29/2016 4:17:58 PM, Vaarka wrote:
So we've been talking about the "-ism's" in history (nationalism, socialism, liberalism, etc...).

Being me, I don't really understand how the -ism's work until someone's kind of explained it with some examples. So, of course, I don't really know what these "-ism's" are, and wouldn't mind if someone here (because I know some of you are famous for your strange knowledge on this subject) could explain how some of these work or what their "goal" or "concept" is.

Basically, ones like nationalism, socialism, conservatism, liberalism, capitalism, etc. Any others you may know that I didn't list that are major or important.

Feudalism: You're a tenant with 2 cows. The landlord takes some of the milk and all of the cream.

Pure socialism: You have 2 cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They give you as much milk as you need.

Socialism: You have 2 cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor, who has zero cows.

Fascism: You have 2 cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.

Pure communism: You have 2 cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them. You all share the milk.

Soviet communism: You have 2 cows. The government takes both and gives you milk. You wait so long to get the milk that it's curdled by the time it reaches you.

Totalitarianism: You have 2 cows. The government takes both and shoots you. They deny the cows' existence. Milk is banned.

Pure democracy: You have 2 cows. You and your neighbors all vote to decide who gets the milk.

Representative democracy: You have 2 cows. You and your neighbors elect someone to distribute the milk.

American-Democrat Democracy: You have 2 cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for your success. You vote for politicians who raise taxes on your cows, which forces you to sell one to pay it. The politicians use that tax money to buy your neighbor a cow.

American-Republican democracy: You have 2 cows. Your neighbor has none. You move to a better neighborhood.

Pure capitalism: You have 2 cows. You lay one off and force the other to do the work of 4 cows. You're surprised when it dies.

Capitalism: You have 2 cows. You sell one and buy a bull. You herd them and grow rich.

Anarchy: You have 2 cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors kill you and take the cows.

American Corporatism: You have two cows. You sell one to a subsidiary company and lease it back to yourself to claim a tax benefit. You drug the cows so they produce far more milk than normal. Your bosses give you a bonus. One of the cows dies from the drugs. You tell the press you downsized, thereby halving expenses. The company stock goes up. Your bosses give you a bonus. You outsource your farmhand labor to Mexico. You generously donate to the President's campaign. The President cuts corporate taxes.

Nationalism: You have 2 cows. They're American cows, so they're better than anyone else's cows.

Conservatism and liberalism don't really fit into the cow dynamic, unfortunately. But it was fun.

Thanks for the basic explanation XD

That's all simplified of course, but I hope it helps. Do you want a more serious answer?
Vaarka
Posts: 7,613
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 6:21:27 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/29/2016 6:20:35 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Thanks for the basic explanation XD

That's all simplified of course, but I hope it helps. Do you want a more serious answer?

I mean, you can if you want to.
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 6:33:36 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/29/2016 6:21:27 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 1/29/2016 6:20:35 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Thanks for the basic explanation XD

That's all simplified of course, but I hope it helps. Do you want a more serious answer?

I mean, you can if you want to.

Nationalism is essentially the same thing as patriotism. It is the belief that the people and interests of your nation are of primary importance. It is a sensation of pride in the perceived superiority of your nation (this is the only arguable area where nationalism and patriotism differ, as to qualify for nationalism, you *have* to place your nation above every other one). Nationalism is also the belief that people who share a common language, history, and culture should be an independent nation free from foreign control.

Primordialist nationalism is the belief that nationalism is the result of human evolutionary tendencies to form in and out groups (us vs them).

Modernist nationalism is the belieif that nationalism is a recent creation of social and cultural conditions.

Nationalism was a major cause in WWI, for example, and in WWII, in both the Aryan ideology and Hitler's speeches to the German people. It manifests in most wars for independence, but it can be something as small as chanting anthems and waving flags.

Basically, any situation in which the people of a nation unite behind a cause or in reaction to a specific event can be called nationalism.

Liberalism and conservatism take a bit longer to explain fully. I don't have that time right now. YYW had some good threads on those at one point, I think.
Peepette
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 7:20:22 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/29/2016 6:15:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/29/2016 4:17:58 PM, Vaarka wrote:
So we've been talking about the "-ism's" in history (nationalism, socialism, liberalism, etc...).

Being me, I don't really understand how the -ism's work until someone's kind of explained it with some examples. So, of course, I don't really know what these "-ism's" are, and wouldn't mind if someone here (because I know some of you are famous for your strange knowledge on this subject) could explain how some of these work or what their "goal" or "concept" is.

Basically, ones like nationalism, socialism, conservatism, liberalism, capitalism, etc. Any others you may know that I didn't list that are major or important.

Feudalism: You're a tenant with 2 cows. The landlord takes some of the milk and all of the cream.

Pure socialism: You have 2 cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They give you as much milk as you need.

Socialism: You have 2 cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor, who has zero cows.

Fascism: You have 2 cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.

Pure communism: You have 2 cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them. You all share the milk.

Soviet communism: You have 2 cows. The government takes both and gives you milk. You wait so long to get the milk that it's curdled by the time it reaches you.

Totalitarianism: You have 2 cows. The government takes both and shoots you. They deny the cows' existence. Milk is banned.

Pure democracy: You have 2 cows. You and your neighbors all vote to decide who gets the milk.

Representative democracy: You have 2 cows. You and your neighbors elect someone to distribute the milk.

American-Democrat Democracy: You have 2 cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for your success. You vote for politicians who raise taxes on your cows, which forces you to sell one to pay it. The politicians use that tax money to buy your neighbor a cow.

American-Republican democracy: You have 2 cows. Your neighbor has none. You move to a better neighborhood.

Pure capitalism: You have 2 cows. You lay one off and force the other to do the work of 4 cows. You're surprised when it dies.

Capitalism: You have 2 cows. You sell one and buy a bull. You herd them and grow rich.

Anarchy: You have 2 cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors kill you and take the cows.

American Corporatism: You have two cows. You sell one to a subsidiary company and lease it back to yourself to claim a tax benefit. You drug the cows so they produce far more milk than normal. Your bosses give you a bonus. One of the cows dies from the drugs. You tell the press you downsized, thereby halving expenses. The company stock goes up. Your bosses give you a bonus. You outsource your farmhand labor to Mexico. You generously donate to the President's campaign. The President cuts corporate taxes.

Nationalism: You have 2 cows. They're American cows, so they're better than anyone else's cows.

Conservatism and liberalism don't really fit into the cow dynamic, unfortunately. But it was fun.

I have to admit, this induced a chuckle or two. Well put.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 7:31:02 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/29/2016 6:15:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/29/2016 4:17:58 PM, Vaarka wrote:
I saw a poster with some of those - it has socialism, communism, facism, Nazism, anarchism, capitalism, and then ended with this:

"Surrealism: You have two giraffes. The government makes you take harmonica lessons"
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 7:42:50 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/29/2016 7:31:02 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 1/29/2016 6:15:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/29/2016 4:17:58 PM, Vaarka wrote:
I saw a poster with some of those - it has socialism, communism, facism, Nazism, anarchism, capitalism, and then ended with this:

"Surrealism: You have two giraffes. The government makes you take harmonica lessons"

Lol. Seems legit.
Ellison
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2016 9:39:37 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
All of the 'isms' can become murky due to a wide variety of people using them and their change over time. In addition, some of the definitions (notably neofascism) are actively debated. Due to the complexity and variety within ideologies, it is best to have a basic framework in mind and then explicitly define terms within a particular context so that everyone involved can be on the same page.

Fascism: traditional fascism has a one-party state, high levels of militarism, direct action, nationalism, a mixed economy, personality cults often with some connection to the Third Reich, and some level of totalitarianism and/or dictatorship. In the West, traditional fascism is largely extinct and has been replaced by neofascism. Neofascism has a large amount of variety to it and thus is hard to define beyond the basic principles of hyper-nationalism, militarism, a mixed economy, and social interventionism (often in the form of fairly extreme anti-immigration and state enforcement of traditional values). The three most important distinctions between fascism and neofascism are that the latter typically does not connect itself to the Third Reich, is generally more careful to not be explicitly racist, and is often willing to come to power through the democratic process. It is also important to note that it is uncommon for a party or group to refer to themselves as 'fascist' or 'neofascist.' It is usually a label given to them by others.

Socialism:
socialism is harder to describe due to the varieties of it. The underlying principle of socialism is social ownership and control of the means of production. This can be through unions, equity, joint ownership by employees, etc.. The main dividing line between the various forms of socialism is whether or not they accept market economics. Some forms of socialism accept the marketplace and simply want workers and the public to own and control the means of production within a market economy. Other forms of socialism want to do away with markets completely.

Capitalism: an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and the selling of those products for profit. Capitalism primarily focuses on private ownership and competitive markets. The idea is that competition between producers is motivated by profit rather than social gain in order to provide the market with better and cheaper products through the functions of supply and demand. The varieties of capitalism are virtually endless since no top-third country has a purist capitalist system " they all interfere with market processes (regulate) to some extent.

Nationalism: the use of national identity as an important factor in individual identity and ideology. It is characterized by putting a high value on one's own culture, people, territory, history, and other factors that are seen as the components of a nation's identity. The varieties of nationalism are quite extensive. It can be as simple as a strong emphasis on the self-determination of one's nation and strong belief in civic duty or it can take the form of ethnic nationalism whereby the national identity is considered to be formed by a particular ethnic heritage and values. Nationalism is distinct from patriotism in the sense that the latter refers to an emotional attachment rather than ideology.

Conservatism (US): American conservatism has traditionally been based on republicanism, the rule of law, Judeo-Christian values, American exceptionalism, and free enterprise. There are many competing ideologies that refer to themselves as conservative but the above are their common features.

Liberalism (US): American liberalism is typically based on a set of inalienable rights of the individual such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom from want. These are formulated through notions such as the separation of church and state, national social services, promotion of general welfare, multiculturalism, and civil rights. As with conservatism, the liberal spectrum is quite large.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2016 2:58:10 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/29/2016 5:54:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/29/2016 5:38:16 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/29/2016 4:17:58 PM, Vaarka wrote:
So we've been talking about the "-ism's" in history (nationalism, socialism, liberalism, etc...).

Being me, I don't really understand how the -ism's work until someone's kind of explained it with some examples. So, of course, I don't really know what these "-ism's" are, and wouldn't mind if someone here (because I know some of you are famous for your strange knowledge on this subject) could explain how some of these work or what their "goal" or "concept" is.

Basically, ones like nationalism, socialism, conservatism, liberalism, capitalism, etc. Any others you may know that I didn't list that are major or important.

They can be both personal belief systems about how to run one's life, and beliefs about how society ought to organize and manage itself. They also overlap a lot. Nationalism focuses on the well-being of the nation state as a whole, and bestows a certain value on it and all of its institutions. Globalism, on the other hand, holds that humanity as a whole ought to be our primary concern. Conservatism is, basically, a form of traditionalism (if anything is going to be changed, change it slowly or not at all). Liberalism doesn't even mean anything at this point. It's synonymous with both 'traditional' liberalism (freedom of expression and religion, democracy, the rule of law, etc.) and progressivism, which is also almost meaningless at this point (it originally meant the equal distribution of an influx of wealth which entered the West due to industrialization, but nowadays just serves as an antithesis to conservatism (more change, as fast as possible, the consequences be damned)). Socialism and capitalism are in conflict about who controls the means of production (individuals or more democratized control), while communism is inherently antagonistic to the upper class (the end goal is to strip them of their control and render them obsolete).

At this point, there isn't any real significant fighting in America over socialism v. capitalism; we have a mixed system and it will probably going to stay that way no matter what happens. The main visible conflict is between conservatism and liberalism, and it's why our political system has basically been reduced to farce (with republicans moaning that the world will end anytime something changes, and the progressives so devoted to wanton, unwarranted change that they think 'because it's 2015' is a convincing argument. There's a huge, and very important, struggle between nationalists (the vast majority of Americans) and globalists (the elite ruling class) going on largely behind the scenes. Trump has been so successful, politically, because he is the only politician to vociferously attack the globalists and advocate for some degree of protectionism. Globalists are in reality the biggest threat to American interests, because the obscenely rich owners of multinational conglomerates have no loyalties to America's socioeconomic or geopolitical well-being. The media spin, of course, is anything but this, with a bipartisan media establishment demonizing the economic and social policies of the 'other' in order to prevent any real issues from coming to light while never changing the status quo. The last time this underlying conflict bubbled to the surface was when Nader ran on an anti-NAFTA platform, tapping into a similar vein that Trump is now exploiting with greater success than Nader ever did (mostly because Trump is a shameless populist and an adept manipulator, being a media man and negotiator himself.

Never thought you ever anti-globalization, Skep. Come on. It's the way of the future.

So was a unified Europe, at one point in history. Competing nation-states lead to advances in all fields as they look for an edge over one another. It also means that a nation treats its own citizens better, because they are part of its overall 'body' and comprise its aggregate power. With globalism, there are no such attachments. A multinational corporation doesn't care about the long-term prospects of any nation state once it transcends it. Moving polluting enterprises to third-world country in order to exploit a desperate labor force is completely acceptable. Where the focus of humanity is national, you have a bunch of governments which care about their own well-being and foster self-improvement in a constant drive to compete on the world stage. When rule is globalized, you have an elite class composed of consummate autists: their only loyalty is to their own interests. If you belong to this ruling class it makes sense to support globalism, but if you don't then you are basically tying a noose for your own neck in pursuit of a utopian mirage.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2016 3:07:24 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/30/2016 2:58:10 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/29/2016 5:54:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/29/2016 5:38:16 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/29/2016 4:17:58 PM, Vaarka wrote:
So we've been talking about the "-ism's" in history (nationalism, socialism, liberalism, etc...).

Being me, I don't really understand how the -ism's work until someone's kind of explained it with some examples. So, of course, I don't really know what these "-ism's" are, and wouldn't mind if someone here (because I know some of you are famous for your strange knowledge on this subject) could explain how some of these work or what their "goal" or "concept" is.

Basically, ones like nationalism, socialism, conservatism, liberalism, capitalism, etc. Any others you may know that I didn't list that are major or important.

They can be both personal belief systems about how to run one's life, and beliefs about how society ought to organize and manage itself. They also overlap a lot. Nationalism focuses on the well-being of the nation state as a whole, and bestows a certain value on it and all of its institutions. Globalism, on the other hand, holds that humanity as a whole ought to be our primary concern. Conservatism is, basically, a form of traditionalism (if anything is going to be changed, change it slowly or not at all). Liberalism doesn't even mean anything at this point. It's synonymous with both 'traditional' liberalism (freedom of expression and religion, democracy, the rule of law, etc.) and progressivism, which is also almost meaningless at this point (it originally meant the equal distribution of an influx of wealth which entered the West due to industrialization, but nowadays just serves as an antithesis to conservatism (more change, as fast as possible, the consequences be damned)). Socialism and capitalism are in conflict about who controls the means of production (individuals or more democratized control), while communism is inherently antagonistic to the upper class (the end goal is to strip them of their control and render them obsolete).

At this point, there isn't any real significant fighting in America over socialism v. capitalism; we have a mixed system and it will probably going to stay that way no matter what happens. The main visible conflict is between conservatism and liberalism, and it's why our political system has basically been reduced to farce (with republicans moaning that the world will end anytime something changes, and the progressives so devoted to wanton, unwarranted change that they think 'because it's 2015' is a convincing argument. There's a huge, and very important, struggle between nationalists (the vast majority of Americans) and globalists (the elite ruling class) going on largely behind the scenes. Trump has been so successful, politically, because he is the only politician to vociferously attack the globalists and advocate for some degree of protectionism. Globalists are in reality the biggest threat to American interests, because the obscenely rich owners of multinational conglomerates have no loyalties to America's socioeconomic or geopolitical well-being. The media spin, of course, is anything but this, with a bipartisan media establishment demonizing the economic and social policies of the 'other' in order to prevent any real issues from coming to light while never changing the status quo. The last time this underlying conflict bubbled to the surface was when Nader ran on an anti-NAFTA platform, tapping into a similar vein that Trump is now exploiting with greater success than Nader ever did (mostly because Trump is a shameless populist and an adept manipulator, being a media man and negotiator himself.

Never thought you ever anti-globalization, Skep. Come on. It's the way of the future.

So was a unified Europe, at one point in history. Competing nation-states lead to advances in all fields as they look for an edge over one another. It also means that a nation treats its own citizens better, because they are part of its overall 'body' and comprise its aggregate power. With globalism, there are no such attachments. A multinational corporation doesn't care about the long-term prospects of any nation state once it transcends it. Moving polluting enterprises to third-world country in order to exploit a desperate labor force is completely acceptable. Where the focus of humanity is national, you have a bunch of governments which care about their own well-being and foster self-improvement in a constant drive to compete on the world stage. When rule is globalized, you have an elite class composed of consummate autists: their only loyalty is to their own interests. If you belong to this ruling class it makes sense to support globalism, but if you don't then you are basically tying a noose for your own neck in pursuit of a utopian mirage.

This response was entirely too serious. But if we're actually being serious about this, then okay.

Of course, this competition among nation-states is the father of conflict, nationalism, and militarism. Sure, it drives industry, but only relative to the point of getting it before the vague but omnipresent enemy does. Globalization unites humanity beneath a common will. It is the fusion of cultures and the end of division and, thusly, of conflict. People will unite behind space colonization rather than pointless squabbling. Globalization as a process is of immense benefit to both developed and developing nations. The former are able to easily obtain resources, spread ideologies, and help shape world politics. The latter are able use the support given from the former to develop in turn, whether by industrializing, urbanizing, or some other process. Their standard of living increases; the people grow freer and freer. The problems with multinational corporations and selfish interests exist today, as well, so clearly they can't be exclusively looped in with globalism.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2016 3:15:17 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/30/2016 3:07:24 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/30/2016 2:58:10 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/29/2016 5:54:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:

Never thought you ever anti-globalization, Skep. Come on. It's the way of the future.

So was a unified Europe, at one point in history. Competing nation-states lead to advances in all fields as they look for an edge over one another. It also means that a nation treats its own citizens better, because they are part of its overall 'body' and comprise its aggregate power. With globalism, there are no such attachments. A multinational corporation doesn't care about the long-term prospects of any nation state once it transcends it. Moving polluting enterprises to third-world country in order to exploit a desperate labor force is completely acceptable. Where the focus of humanity is national, you have a bunch of governments which care about their own well-being and foster self-improvement in a constant drive to compete on the world stage. When rule is globalized, you have an elite class composed of consummate autists: their only loyalty is to their own interests. If you belong to this ruling class it makes sense to support globalism, but if you don't then you are basically tying a noose for your own neck in pursuit of a utopian mirage.

This response was entirely too serious. But if we're actually being serious about this, then okay.

Of course, this competition among nation-states is the father of conflict, nationalism, and militarism. Sure, it drives industry, but only relative to the point of getting it before the vague but omnipresent enemy does. Globalization unites humanity beneath a common will. It is the fusion of cultures and the end of division and, thusly, of conflict.

Where has this happened? What makes you think that it ever will happen?

People will unite behind space colonization rather than pointless squabbling.

... because they are right now? The general public also severely underestimates how difficult space colonization will be. And they don't seem all that interested in it, compared to military and resource issues.

Globalization as a process is of immense benefit to both developed and developing nations. The former are able to easily obtain resources, spread ideologies, and help shape world politics. The latter are able use the support given from the former to develop in turn, whether by industrializing, urbanizing, or some other process. Their standard of living increases; the people grow freer and freer. The problems with multinational corporations and selfish interests exist today, as well, so clearly they can't be exclusively looped in with globalism.

The problems with multinational corporations exist because a hegemonic nation (America) and its allies have adopted globalist policies. With any degree of protectionism, these entities would not have enough power to basically use said hegemon's army as a private military force by manipulating its political system, while simultaneously eviscerating it economically.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2016 3:20:56 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/30/2016 3:15:17 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/30/2016 3:07:24 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/30/2016 2:58:10 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/29/2016 5:54:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:

Never thought you ever anti-globalization, Skep. Come on. It's the way of the future.

So was a unified Europe, at one point in history. Competing nation-states lead to advances in all fields as they look for an edge over one another. It also means that a nation treats its own citizens better, because they are part of its overall 'body' and comprise its aggregate power. With globalism, there are no such attachments. A multinational corporation doesn't care about the long-term prospects of any nation state once it transcends it. Moving polluting enterprises to third-world country in order to exploit a desperate labor force is completely acceptable. Where the focus of humanity is national, you have a bunch of governments which care about their own well-being and foster self-improvement in a constant drive to compete on the world stage. When rule is globalized, you have an elite class composed of consummate autists: their only loyalty is to their own interests. If you belong to this ruling class it makes sense to support globalism, but if you don't then you are basically tying a noose for your own neck in pursuit of a utopian mirage.

This response was entirely too serious. But if we're actually being serious about this, then okay.

Of course, this competition among nation-states is the father of conflict, nationalism, and militarism. Sure, it drives industry, but only relative to the point of getting it before the vague but omnipresent enemy does. Globalization unites humanity beneath a common will. It is the fusion of cultures and the end of division and, thusly, of conflict.

Where has this happened? What makes you think that it ever will happen?

It is the only conceivable end result for successful globalization. One world government.

People will unite behind space colonization rather than pointless squabbling.

... because they are right now? The general public also severely underestimates how difficult space colonization will be. And they don't seem all that interested in it, compared to military and resource issues.

Full globalization isn't going to happen within our lifetimes. I doubt it'll happen for centuries. But the growth of technology will practically guarantee a rising interest in space colonization.

Globalization as a process is of immense benefit to both developed and developing nations. The former are able to easily obtain resources, spread ideologies, and help shape world politics. The latter are able use the support given from the former to develop in turn, whether by industrializing, urbanizing, or some other process. Their standard of living increases; the people grow freer and freer. The problems with multinational corporations and selfish interests exist today, as well, so clearly they can't be exclusively looped in with globalism.

The problems with multinational corporations exist because a hegemonic nation (America) and its allies have adopted globalist policies. With any degree of protectionism, these entities would not have enough power to basically use said hegemon's army as a private military force by manipulating its political system, while simultaneously eviscerating it economically.

This I would have to call too cynical for reality. Nations still trump corporations on the international playing field. These problems exist because of flaws in American domestic life; namely, the role of money and corporatism in politics. Without that, these corporations couldn't influence foreign policy meaning that, if liberalism is correct, America would be a fully fledged transmission belt for the ideas of its people.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2016 3:30:06 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/30/2016 3:20:56 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/30/2016 3:15:17 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Where has this happened? What makes you think that it ever will happen?

It is the only conceivable end result for successful globalization. One world government.

Where has this trend followed, historically? In the Middle East, the old tensions remained right up until the last empire collapsed. In Rome as well, the tensions never went away. Making government more encompassing won't alter basic human nature.

People will unite behind space colonization rather than pointless squabbling.

... because they are right now? The general public also severely underestimates how difficult space colonization will be. And they don't seem all that interested in it, compared to military and resource issues.

Full globalization isn't going to happen within our lifetimes. I doubt it'll happen for centuries. But the growth of technology will practically guarantee a rising interest in space colonization.

Unless we enter an interregnum, which I think is much more likely.

The problems with multinational corporations exist because a hegemonic nation (America) and its allies have adopted globalist policies. With any degree of protectionism, these entities would not have enough power to basically use said hegemon's army as a private military force by manipulating its political system, while simultaneously eviscerating it economically.

This I would have to call too cynical for reality. Nations still trump corporations on the international playing field. These problems exist because of flaws in American domestic life; namely, the role of money and corporatism in politics. Without that, these corporations couldn't influence foreign policy meaning that, if liberalism is correct, America would be a fully fledged transmission belt for the ideas of its people.

That's why we go to war, or threaten to do so, in order to secure arms contracts or control commodity prices, while weaponizing such markets (look at the current geopolitical conflicts surrounding Russia.) The knot is getting tighter and tighter; the only way to unwind it is to attack the system which allows this relationship to thrive. Hell, we didn't go to war with Russia for a reason; the global market pretty much kicked them right in the solar plexus after Ukraine. It's getting to the point where multinational corporations, through economic action alone, can inflict a crippling geopolitical blow, and if 'peace' comes under those terms, it won't come through government.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2016 4:56:56 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/30/2016 3:30:06 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/30/2016 3:20:56 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/30/2016 3:15:17 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Where has this happened? What makes you think that it ever will happen?

It is the only conceivable end result for successful globalization. One world government.

Where has this trend followed, historically?

- It's supposed to happen at the End of Time. ;-)

In the Middle East, the old tensions remained right up until the last empire collapsed. In Rome as well, the tensions never went away. Making government more encompassing won't alter basic human nature.

- This is one of the things that irritate me most, & one of the reasons I dislike the western concept of equality & democracy. The delusion of uniformity & the destruction of diversity! This stems from some type of arrogant idealism, where one's own worldview ought to encompass a unified humanity, while other's worldviews are distasteful to one.

- I once asked a guy (from London) who brought up this stupid idea, if he would be okay with westerners establishing western style universities in Muslim countries, of course, his answer was an excited approval, then I asked him if he would be okay with me establishing an Islamic style university in London, well, let's just say he wasn't as pleased. This is a serious disease that creeps into people's minds & blinds the most educated of them from seeing basic brute human nature, it breeds arrogance & delusion.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2016 5:01:43 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/30/2016 3:30:06 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/30/2016 3:20:56 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/30/2016 3:15:17 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Where has this happened? What makes you think that it ever will happen?

It is the only conceivable end result for successful globalization. One world government.

Where has this trend followed, historically? In the Middle East, the old tensions remained right up until the last empire collapsed. In Rome as well, the tensions never went away. Making government more encompassing won't alter basic human nature.

- Oh! & I am pretty sure our friend is thinking about a western style government when he says 'one world government'. I doubt he would express comparable enthusiasm if said 'one world government' was, say, an Islamic Caliphate.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...